In the last programme,
we discovered how the mammals took over from the dinosaurs,
producing the largest and most magnificent creatures on Earth.
But then, at the end of the last Ice Age,
it all went horribly wrong.
Most of the huge mammals disappeared.
This coincided with the rise of Man, and he's often been blamed,
but how can one species become that powerful?
We humans like to think of ourselves as unique -
a cut above the rest of the animal kingdom.
But since the 19th century,
we have known our place in nature.
We are just another mammal connected by our family tree
to a beastly past.
However, the story of how we became so unusual
is one of the most extraordinary in evolution.
It's easy to understand why we think we're so different.
Our sophisticated use of technology seems to set us apart from other animals.
Our extraordinary tool-making skills
allow us to recreate anything from stone tools to artificial animals.
One more of those, please. Head up.
OK, then down. A bit of chill.
Walking with Beasts is the story of the rise of mammals and our history,
and the history of our ancestors is an integral part of that.
Many of the things we think make us so special
come from a group of animals that lie at the roots of our family tree.
They are the primates.
Nowadays, they come in all shapes and sizes,
with a range of beards and hairstyles.
This colourful group of animals are highly sociable and intelligent.
Much of what we are comes from this group of creatures.
So to really understand how humans became such a success story,
we have to go way back, to a time just after the dinosaurs had died out,
when primates first appeared in the branches.
Some of those early primates
looked remarkably similar to lemurs that still exist today.
They still have the characteristics
that first set early primates apart from other tree dwelling mammals.
This animal is a black and white ruffed lemur,
and she's a primate from the island of Madagascar.
This animal here is a coati,
and he's a member of the raccoon family
from Central and South America.
These are very different animals.
If you look at the lemur's eyes, her two eyes face forwards.
She's a tree-climbing animal and that helps her to judge distance.
The coati's also a tree-climbing animal,
but his eyes are more to the side of his head rather than on the front.
We know this is an ancient feature of primates
because it has turned up in the earliest fossils.
This is the most exciting fossil primate there is.
lt's the oldest where we have a skeleton,
and it shows us all the key features because it's almost complete,
and many features show that it definitely is a primate.
All these features were adaptations to a life in the trees.
What primates have done is rotate their eyes forwards,
and this is incredibly important
for three-dimensional vision.
To see an object in three dimensions,
you have to see it simultaneously with both eyes,
and if you're leaping around in the trees,
this is a very important feature.
And to make sure you don't fall,
you need to be able to hold on.
Their front hands - or paws, in this case - are very different.
The coati has got flat paws with claws on,
and he can't really grip as well as the lemur.
The lemur here has got...
hands.
She's got four fingers and a thumb.
She's also got fingernails as opposed to claws,
and she can grasp just like we can.
If you want to leap around on broad surfaces like tree trunks,
having claws as grappling hooks
is a very good idea. They dig in and you can move around,
but once the supports you are leaping to are thinner,
then the claws are not so effective
and it's much better to be able to grasp in a pincher action.
Like many mammals whose ancestors survived by hiding from the dinosaurs,
most of the early primates appear to have been nocturnal.
They probably lived their lives a bit like bushbabies today.
They're solitary and see in black and white,
but fantastic hand-eye co-ordination allows them to catch food on the wing
and to leap about the tree tops at great speed.
Here is where the human story probably started -
dangling on the branch in a dark forest.
I'm convinced that many of these early features of the primates
were absolutely fundamental to our own evolution.
lt provided the basis for what we are today.
One very good example is the large, forward-facing eyes,
which permit three-dimensional vision in connection with the brain,
and the grasping hands,
because once you use your grasping hands in front of your eyes,
you can hold something and manipulate it.
This is the fundamental basis for tool-making,
a big breakthrough in human evolution.
The next chapter in our evolutionary story
came when primates abandoned the night
and stepped out into the sunlight.
45 million years ago, a new type of primate appeared,
with a much more familiar face.
Unfortunately, fossils from this time are extremely rare,
and usually only fragments of bone exist,
but an extraordinary technique borrowed from medicine
is allowing Dr Christoph Zollikofer to piece together the bones
to help us visualise what these primates were like.
Using a scanner, they take three-dimensional images of the fragments
and manipulate them in the computer.
The idea is to put them together like a three-dimensional puzzle.
You can see the fragments of the lower jaw,
and the fragments of the two upper jaws.
With these fragments, parts of them come from the left side of the body,
parts from the right side.
We can try to reconstruct
a more or less complete face of this animal.
Where pieces of the fossil are missing,
the computer can generate a mirror image to complete it.
To get a proper look at this animal,
the scientists can go further and use the computer to build a model.
Guided by the three-dimensional image,
a laser traces the exact shape of the fossil layer by layer,
onto a light-sensitive resin.
The resin reacts and sets hard
to reveal a reconstruction of the fossil.
This is an extraordinary moment,
a chance for paleontologist Dr Martin
to come face to face with the next stage in man's evolution - the monkeys.
Well, here it is, hot off the press, a real monkey face.
With individual bits, it's difficult to get a good impression,
but when you put them together and look into that from the front,
there are the outsides of the...
..eye sockets directed straight forward.
You can imagine the rest of the eye sockets and that's the face.
So what we're doing is looking straight into the face
of a 45-million-year-old monkey.
Monkeys took primates in a whole new direction.
Living during the daytime gave them a new look compared to earlier primates.
They have flatter faces and their eyesight is superb.
Not only can they see in three dimensions,
but they also see the world in colour.
Primatologist Dr Louise Barrett knows just how important this is
for survival.
Colour vision's very useful for monkeys because they rely on fruit.
They don't eat insects. If you can identify ripe fruit, that's handy,
and ripe fruit is usually bright red or yellow, not green.
The other reason colour vision's very useful for monkeys
is for communication.
These monkeys have white spots on their noses,
and the family that they belong to
have elaborate facial patterning,
and that's part of communication and communication between species
so you don't mate with the wrong kind of monkey,
which would be a bit of a disaster!
Monkeys' flat faces and small noses came from sacrificing their sense of smell,
but their good looks made up for it!
Because monkeys aren't so reliant on smell to communicate with other animals,
it's allowed them to have a much reduced snout,
their nose is no longer wet,
and they don't have a divided upper lip
the same as the lower primates and other mammals do,
so if you've got a furry mobile upper lip
and greater freedom of your facial muscles,
you can have greater facial expression.
That's very important, facial expression.
Because these animals can't speak to each other,
they rely on their facial expressions to communicate.
For example, threat displays often involve...
moving the brows up and down in this kind of way.
And then submission can be equally well conveyed
by using what's called a submissive grin...
Whereas we bare our teeth to smile, this is a fear gesture.
They're baring their teeth - "I'm very scared and won't harm you."
Baboons have a very nice expression.
They pull their ears back, raise their eyebrows,
and smack their lips at whoever they're interested in.
That's been called the ''Come hither'' expression, which is very appropriate!
We can identify with these non-verbal signals
because they remain a key part of human communication.
We recognise whether someone is happy,
sad, angry, or plain embarrassed
just by looking at their faces.
This all started back in pre-history with day-living monkeys
because they had such hectic social lives.
Becoming day-living
means you're more vulnerable to different types of predators
that operate in different ways,
so what that's selected for in the monkeys is group living.
So most monkeys live in groups
and are intensely social.
They spend a lot of their day grooming each other.
They're very concerned about who's who and catching up with everybody,
and they've capitalised on that
and become these kind of political animals,
and use their social relationships to enhance their position in a group
so they can get the best food, the best allies - all those things.
All this networking
had a profound effect on another part of the monkey's body.
Doing that in your head requires a lot of computing power
to keep track of who's who.
lt's like a big soap opera and you need to keep on top of it
or suffer the consequences.
So that pressure to always know what's going on within the group
selected for a better and more cognitive function -
better brains in short.
The complex politics of group life
seemed to drive an increase in brain size.
It was the start of what was to become
a distinctly human characteristic.
Monkeys spread across the world,
and it wasn't long before a new branch of brainy primates sprang up.
Chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans
are our closest living relatives.
They are the apes.
This is Beau. He's an orang-utan infant,
and he's a member of the great ape family,
which is the family that we belong to.
So, like us, he's got grasping hands...
He has a large brain for his body size
and because of that, they have long pregnancies
and a very long period of parental care.
Trees have always been the ancestral home of the primates,
but apes began the process of coming down to the ground.
The great apes are much bigger than monkeys.
They can't run along the tops of branches like monkeys do,
they have to climb.
They climb up the trees and semi-swing through the branches to get their food.
This means they have a more upright posture and broader chest.
Apes tend to swing or clamber through the branches
rather than leap like the monkeys, so they lost the need for a tail.
When they move around on the ground, the great apes knuckle walk.
Monkeys plant their hands on the ground, sometimes just their fingertips,
whereas the apes use their knuckles.
Also, the orang-utan walk on their fists.
That gives them a more semi-erect posture,
partly because their arms are longer than their legs.
As they move around, they're much higher up at the front
because their arms are longer than their legs
and that's what they're resting on.
He reminds me of my husband!
Apes may be close relatives, but we know they're not family.
There must have been a point in evolution
when our ancestors stepped out from among the apes
and took a new path.
Hello, Danny!
To help identify the fundamental difference between apes and humans,
Danny the chimpanzee is taking Professor Leslie Aiello for a walk.
First they're covering their feet in mud to make footprints.
Yuck! lt's fun to play dirty, isn't it?
Come on. Come on.
As they walk together, they leave a muddy trail behind them
which Professor Aiello can take a closer look at.
Well done!
Let's see what we did here.
The main difference is in the chimpanzee print.
lt's short, it's wide,
and you have the opposable thumb -
the big toe sticks out just like a grasping thumb on a hand.
If you compare that to a human footprint,
our prints are very long, relatively narrow,
and again, very importantly,
the big toe's in line with the rest of the foot.
No other primate except humans normally walks on two legs.
It is the most obvious feature that separates us from the rest of the apes.
But was upright walking
the key development that changed our ancestors' destiny?
In 1972, one of the most exciting pieces of evidence
regarding human evolution
was discovered in Tanzania.
It was not a fossa bone
but a track of footprints preserved in volcanic ash.
They're thought to have been made by a remarkable creature
that waked across this muddy ground
over three and a half million years ago.
This is a cast of the famous footprint trail
from the site of Laetoli in northern Tanzania.
lt's important because it's one of our earliest evidences
of two-footed walking in our early ancestors.
You can see the importance here
if we compare the footprints.
This is one of my prints, and you can see here clearly
that the big toe's in line with the other toes,
and I have a clear arch on the medial side of my foot.
What we can do is compare this with the chimpanzee footprint
and here you can see that it's very different
because the chimp has a space
between the big toe and the lateral toes.
Also, there's no evidence of knuckle prints,
so whoever was making these prints was clearly walking on two feet.
When we find evidence of upright walking,
we have conclusive evidence
that we have something that's on the human rather than on the ape line.
From what we know about the fossil record for human evolution,
upright walking came first.
lt preceded the expansion of the brain.
lt preceded tool use.
So when we find something like this, we can be virtually 100% sure
that we're dealing with something that's a human ancestor
and not an ape ancestor.
These footprints are tantalising evidence of a remarkable creature...
an ape that finally gave up its ancestral home in the trees
and came to the ground.
This is so exciting because it's actual evidence of behaviour.
We don't have to infer from bones what the function was.
We can just see it here. This is exactly like walking on a beach
or seeing your footprints on the wet bathroom floor.
We can tell what was happening.
lt's a snapshot in time. You can just imagine them
walking across this ash-covered plain
very much like we would walk today.
The identity of this creature
was finally confirmed when they found a skeleton from that time
which seemed part ape and part human
called Australopithecus.
This is one of the best australopithecine skulls we have.
If you actually saw this, it would have looked very chimpanzee-like.
The brain's fairly small,
just marginally larger than a chimpanzee.
The australopithecine had a fairly projecting face,
but the nose was quite flat and would have been a very ape-like
or chimpanzee-like nose.
One giveaway that it wasn't a chimpanzee is that the foramen magnum -
the hole through which the spinal cord enters the brain -
is underneath the skull,
so the skull would have balanced on the spinal column,
and this is a characteristic of a biped.
So this individual, even though it superficially looked chimpanzee-like,
would have walked on two legs and been on the human line.
The skeleton and footprints
provided evidence for the Walking with Beasts animators
to build Australopithecus.
But with no creature alive today,
it took a lot of advice from scientists
before the animators could get one moving.
One thing that I don't think will work about this one
is the fact that it's so bent over, its legs never straighten up.
If you try and walk like that...
you'll never get anywhere.
You'll get two foot down the road.
If you stand like that for any period of time,
it's such hard work to get anywhere doing this.
By the time you get down here, I can feel it in my thighs, you know?
I don't believe that's going to walk at all.
That's a good posture!
(LAUGHTER DROWNS WORDS)
The first one I started was this walk here.
My initial impression was to go with a very chimp-like walk...
lt just felt like, ''Let's try that first'', shall we say.
I then moved onto basically...
just bringing him more vertical, more upright.
These are all rough animations, just trying to get the idea for it.
This is almost...believable in that it's more upright
and it's got the basic timings of a bipedal walker.
There's an awful lot of movement going into getting the legs forward,
which is again very, very inefficient.
This stage is when I was trying the alternative shoulder and hip timings
the scientists had advised us on.
lt's almost there, but it feels uncomfortable.
There's a lot of effort going into each footstep,
as if it's pulling its feet out of mud,
like it has sticky feet, for example.
And then from that one to...
what is the finalised one,
which, although not...
which doesn't look very chimpanzee- or ape-like, nor perfectly human,
so it's in-between the two.
At the same time, it isn't putting much effort into getting anywhere,
which is the whole idea of a walk.
I've learnt more doing this one cycle
than with any other animation I've done.
You could see this thing evolving on screen,
which was quite interesting.
And when you get to that point where it looks almost human
but it's not quite human,
then it's just about right,
because that's what Australopithecus seems to be -
not quite ape, not quite human.
In one way, walking upright
made Australopithecus physically closer to humans than to apes.
But does that mean they started to behave the same way?
With their hands free to use tools,
had they changed into a creature which had started to take control
over the animals around them?
(POP MUSIC ON HEADPHONES)
Nice one!
South African scientist Dr Bob Brain
has made a meticulous study
of the remains of the southern species of Australopithecus.
At a cave called Swartkrans,
he has found evidence to establish whether walking upright
changed these ape men from harmless fruit eaters into casual kiters.
This cave of Swartkrans is remarkably rich in fossil bearings.
Something like 240,000 fossils came out of this excavation alone.
Most were of animals that lived in the bush,
but there was also a high proportion of ape man skulls
minus their bodies.
To many, this was evidence of Man's darker side.
One possible explanation is that they had been cannibals
and professional decapitators
bringing back the skulls of their victims to the place where they lived,
and that's how they ended up as fossils,
but I wanted to look at the complete picture
and see what other explanations and options there might have been.
Dr Brain had a hunch that the real explanation
might be found by studying today's fauna in the bush.
Fortunately, many of the animals that one finds in the bush today
are the same basically as they were a million or two million years ago.
Some of them have disappeared - the sabre tooth cats have gone -
but the leopard is still there, the lion is still there.
Well, it seemed to me to be essential to go out into the bush
and look at the places where kills had been made.
With an eye for clues, Dr Brain found a classic kill site.
This is where a leopard had had its kill,
and unless you come really quickly before the remains fall to the ground
you don't find very much
because it's immediately scattered by the hyenas and jackals
that come to any such place.
What you do typically find is the skull,
because this is a resistant part.
The teeth and the lower jaw are not very palatable,
neither are the horns, and these are the bits that remain.
The sad truth of what was really going on
became apparent in one of the fossils.
One really interesting piece of evidence
that came from the Swartkrans fossils
was in the form of this piece of skull.
lt comes from the back of the skull of a child
maybe ten or 1 1 years old,
and it has two holes punctured into the parietal bones.
Oddly enough, the spacing between these two holes
is matched almost exactly by the typical spacing
of the lower canines of a leopard.
So a possible reconstruction that we suggested
was that this child was killed by a leopard
and dragged away to the feeding place
in the lower part of the Swartkrans cave,
and this, like so many other fossils at Swartkrans,
constitutes nothing more than the remains of cats' dinners.
So walking upright helped us to get a move on,
but we were still cat food.
For an ape man living in the relatively open savanna,
I think life must have been fairly scary.
Not only were they fairly small,
but they had very little in the way of natural defences.
They didn't have large teeth, fangs or claws,
and there was a great variety of dangerous predators
always waiting around them.
Apart from the carnivores that we are so familiar with today
like the lions, leopards and hyenas,
there was a whole range of other carnivores
such as the sabre tooth cats
skulking around,
waiting for an easy meal.
But predators weren't the only thing
to make life tough for the Australopithecus.
Two and a half million years ago,
the weather took a turn for the worse.
It got colder and drier.
It was the start of the Ice Age...
and the changing climate had a profound effect on our ancestors.
Well, it seems that
as conditions became more and more difficult for survival,
two different strategies were attempted.
One was used by the robust ape men,
and they had a very characteristic skull,
usually with a flat face, a wide, flat face,
and this strategy seems to have been one of toughening yourself up,
trying to overcome the difficult conditions.
Altogether, a tough-looking, robust individual.
That was the one alternative.
The other, which occurred in our own human and pre-human lineage,
was simply an enlargement in the size of the brain.
Now, this is reflected
from the beginning of the human lineage,
and, in the case of these creatures,
they seemed to live by their wits rather than by their strength.
And, of the two options,
this proved to be the one that came through.
The robust ape men became extinct,
whilst the descendants of the larger- brained species moved out of Africa
and began to extend their range across the world.
For those that went as far as northern Europe,
for the first time they had to cope with permafrost
and freezing winters.
The landscape was dominated by cold-weather specialists -
Megaloceros, a giant deer,
woolly rhinos,
and herds of magnificent mammoths.
The only primate that could survive in these conditions
was a highly specialised,
cold-adapted human.
It was a Neanderthal.
For Walking with Beasts,
the Neanderthals were so close to modern humans
that actors rather than animation
were used to recreate them,
but it still required three hours in make-up
to be transformed.
Neanderthal features,
particularly those of the face, were an important part of their adaptation.
What you would see is a jaw that juts forward,
very large eyebrow ridges, a low forehead.
The large fleshy nose on Neanderthals is very interesting
because it's an adaptation to cold climate.
The big nose
warmed and humidified the air
as it went into their lungs and helped them maintain high activity rates
in extremely cold weather.
I suspect their noses ran a lot of the time
and Neanderthals probably weren't very pretty to look at
when they were engaged in physical activity.
They may have been pretty ugly actually!
I beg your pardon!
Guys!
The Neanderthals may have looked unsavoury,
but they certainly weren't stupid.
In fact their brains were somewhat larger than modern humans',
and the fossil record suggests they certainly weren't cat food any more.
Evidence that their relationship with animals had changed
has been found on the island of Jersey in the English Channel.
Archaeologist Dr Paul Callow
has been studying the remains found at the base of this cliff
to piece together what went on here.
Hundreds of bones have been found here
and they tell a remarkable story.
What's so special about this place
is that huge numbers of mammoth and woolly rhino bones were found.
There were other species, but those were the most important ones.
We have an example of one of the teeth that was found of a mammoth.
lt wasn't so much the sheer quantity of them that was important,
it was the way they were organised within the site.
During the excavations in 1969,
archaeologists were astonished to find animal bones like these
stacked neatly together rather than all jumbled up.
lt's extremely unusual to find bones like this,
and it really does indicate human intervention of some kind,
and, in fact, we can find the culprit...
because there's plenty of evidence.
This is the kind of tool Neanderthal man was making,
and if we look at the bones we can see the scratch marks that were made
when stone tools were used to cut the flesh off the bone.
It was not only scratch marks found on the bones.
When Neanderthal teeth were discovered,
it seemed certain that Neanderthals
had been involved in some kind of organised slaughter.
But the mystery was how did they get so many of these giant animals
into this location?
Dr Callow believes the cliff provides a clue.
Now, imagine, instead of today's coastal scene,
a vast, grassy plain extending for many kilometres out there.
On the plateau, a herd of mammoth and a few woolly rhino grazing.
Now, Neanderthal man could get behind them and drive them this way,
towards the headland on which I'm sitting.
Once you've cut off their retreat,
there's nowhere for them to go except down into the ravine.
Of course, we don't really know how Neanderthals persuaded mammoths
to move in this way.
We don't really know, of course, what would spook a mammoth for sure.
However, there was one technology that Neanderthals had
which would be very useful, and that is fire.
In the ravine itself, there are masses of charcoal and burnt bone.
Now, with fire, you light it behind the mammoths,
and they really don't have any option
but to come in this direction.
Here was a primate that had swapped fruit eating for meat eating,
and it just so happens that these professional killers were around
when the giant mammals started to disappear.
Having survived some of the hardest conditions on Earth,
magnificent creatures like the woolly rhinos,
the woolly mammoths and Megaloceros
all became extinct as the last Ice Age ended.
Although the Neanderthals might look guilty,
there are other suspects in the case.
Cousins of the Neanderthals reached Europe
just at the time the great mammals started to go extinct.
Instead of being cold-adapted,
their bodies were taller and leaner than the Neanderthals'.
Their skulls were higher and more rounded, with bony chins
and a lack of brow ridges.
They were called Cro-Magnon.
They were modern humans.
That's when we were running over there.
On the surface, the Cro-Magnons looked ill-equipped
to survive the harsh conditions.
They had no physical adaptations to the cold.
Ice age environments were extremely tough.
With our very thin tropical bodies,
humans could not survive up here.
If I were a naked human, I would be dead within an hour.
Instead, we developed complex cultures
and complex technologies in order to survive.
Modern technologies use synthetic fibres.
In the Ice Age, what they had was animals.
They were able to kill animals, use the meat for food,
use the hides for clothing, use the bones and antlers to make tools,
and with those simple things put together in a sophisticated way,
people were able to live in these difficult environments.
Cro-Magnons were inventors.
They had a far greater range of tools than the Neanderthals
and used a variety of different materials.
They survived because they were adaptable.
Phew! Wow!
Neanderthal tools were made of chipped stone.
They made simple tools for chopping and cutting wood.
Tools like this could be used for scraping hides
and processing animal materials.
Spear points were used for hunting.
Modern humans also made simple stone tools,
but they were more efficient.
But importantly, they modelled them on handles,
so it allowed them to be used with great mechanical advantage.
In scraping a hide, a handle gives you a lot of advantage.
They also made tools out of other materials such as antler and bone.
What you would be using 30,000 years ago in Europe
is spears tipped with antler points like this.
If you feel the points on these, they are razor sharp...
and you could easily penetrate very, very deeply.
Initially, they were on spears that you threw by hand,
but about 20,000 years ago,
people started using the spear thrower or atlatl...
and how that worked
is you had a socket at the end of a very large feathered spear.
You just hold it more or less parallel to the ground.
lt will flex up. lt will actually go up initially.
All right!
Way to go!
Whoa, man! That's pretty awesome!
They represented a really revolutionary increase in firepower,
because here you could kill animals at a very significant distance
and safely.
One of the problems Neanderthals had
was often the spears didn't have those real sharp tips,
so you just wounded an animal and then you had to move in close.
There's lots of injury on Neanderthal bones.
People did a study trying to find modern people
who had the same patterns of injuries,
and it turns out it was rodeo cowboys who get stomped on by animals,
and it's the same pattern of injuries that the Neanderthals had.
The Neanderthals lived a much more dangerous life
than the Cro-Magnons,
and they were also a lot less adaptable.
In fact, all the evidence shows
that they were just as much victims as the large mammals.
This points the finger of suspicion for the mass extinction
firmly at Cro-Magnons.
Was it their superior hunting skills that sparked this catastrophe?
Humans certainly hunted the large mammals of the Ice Age.
They hunted mammoth, woolly rhino
and Megaloceros - the giant elk - but they didn't do so that frequently.
The most common animals that they hunted were wild cattle,
reindeer, horse and red deer.
So it's unlikely that humans had much impact
on the extinction of those large mammals.
There is a tendency for us humans
to think that we have always been a global force,
but it seems that back then
we did not have the technology or the numbers
to wreak such havoc amongst the giant mammals.
Many scientists now believe something else must have been going on.
The latest research shows that ice ages can end
not in thousands of years but in a matter of decades,
with catastrophic results.
The rapid fluctuations of climate,
where you could have warming episodes of six to seven degrees Celsius
in the space of less than 30 years,
probably caused so much vegetational disruption
that these large mammals, particularly the large species,
were not able to adapt,
and because they had low population densities
and slow reproductive rates,
environmental changes are the most likely cause of their extinction
rather than over-hunting by humans.
The Earth is a far greater force than we are,
and it was probably a massive and catastrophic change in climate
that drove the giant mammals to extinction.
Despite our sense of power over the Earth and its animals today,
we are vulnerable.
If we were to face the sudden onset of another Ice Age,
it is entirely possible our whole complex and fragile society
could fall apart.
But don't worry - it probably won't happen in our lifetime.
(ERlC IDLE) ? Always look on the bright side of life! ?
(WHlSTLES)
? Always look on the light side of life! ?
(WHlSTLES)
? Always look on the bright side of life! ?
(WHlSTLES) Come on!
? Always look on the bright side of life! ?
(WHlSTLES)
(ROAR!)
? Always look on the bright side of life! ?
Worse things happen at sea, you know!
? Always look on the bright side of life! ?
You've come from nothing, you're going back to nothing!
What have you lost? Nothing!
? Always look on the right side of life! ?
Nothing will come from nothing!